Appeal to the Supreme Court and Defendant's Absence: Ruling 17239/2025 and Post-Cartabia Reform Appeal Deadlines

The Italian legal landscape is constantly evolving, especially in the field of criminal procedural law, where the Cartabia Reform (Legislative Decree 10 October 2022, no. 150) has introduced significant changes. These changes, while aiming to make the judicial system more efficient, have generated new interpretative challenges, particularly concerning transitional regimes and the application of new rules to past situations. The recent ruling of the Court of Cassation no. 17239 of 2025 offers a fundamental clarification on a delicate aspect: the deadlines for filing an appeal to the Supreme Court for a defendant declared absent.

The Cartabia Reform and the Concept of "Defendant's Absence"

The Cartabia Reform has profoundly innovated the discipline of the defendant's absence, introducing stricter criteria to ascertain the defendant's awareness of the proceedings and their voluntary evasion of judgment. Before this reform, the declaration of absence could occur more easily, sometimes leaving the defendant in a state of uncertainty regarding their actual knowledge of the proceedings. This aspect is crucial, as it directly impacts the right to defence and the ability to appeal unfavorable decisions.

Extension of Appeal Deadlines: A Fundamental Right

Our legal system recognizes the right to appeal as a fundamental safeguard of a fair trial. Article 585 of the Code of Criminal Procedure establishes the ordinary deadlines for filing an appeal, but also provides for extensions in particular situations. In this context, Article 585, paragraph 1-bis, of the Code of Criminal Procedure is particularly relevant, as it grants an additional fifteen days to the appeal deadline when the defendant is declared absent and has not had effective knowledge of the proceedings. The question that arises is how to apply this benefit in those "hybrid" cases that fall between the old and new regulations.

The Content of Ruling 17239/2025: Clarity on Transitional Regimes

The Supreme Court, with ruling no. 17239 of 2025, ruled on a specific case concerning the defendant A. C., who was declared absent in the first-instance trial held before the Cartabia Reform came into force. The appeal judgment, although also initiated before the reform, was subsequently handled through a non-participatory written procedure, a method that became more widespread due to the containment needs of the pandemic and was later consolidated in certain procedural forms. The Court of Cassation annulled the ruling of the Court of Appeal of Rome of 12/07/2024 without referral, providing a crucial interpretation on the continuity of the condition of absence and the appeal deadlines. The headnote of the ruling clarifies unequivocally:

In matters of appeals, where the defendant was declared absent in the first-instance trial held before the entry into force of Legislative Decree 10 October 2022, no. 150, and such declaration has not been revoked, they retain this status even in the second-instance trial initiated before the entry into force of the aforementioned decree and subsequently handled through a non-participatory written procedure, so that, for the purpose of filing an appeal to the Supreme Court, they may benefit from the fifteen-day extension of the appeal deadline provided for by art. 585, paragraph 1-bis, Code of Criminal Procedure.

This decision is of enormous practical importance. It means that a defendant who is in a situation of "absence" ascertained under the old regulations and who did not participate in the appeal proceedings (even if conducted in writing) retains the right to the fifteen-day extension of the deadline for filing an appeal to the Supreme Court. The underlying logic is to protect the defendant's right to defence, who, while not formally "untraceable" or "fugitive," did not have full and conscious participation in the proceedings. The ruling emphasizes the need to consider the substance of the defendant's condition rather than the mere temporal sequence of the rules. Despite the appeal proceedings taking place in a post-reform context regarding the methods (written procedure), the pre-reform condition of absence, if unrevoked, prevails to ensure broader protection. The legislative references cited in the ruling, such as arts. 585 and 420-bis of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Legislative Decree 150/2022, confirm the complexity of the framework and the need for a systemic interpretation. In summary, the Court of Cassation has established that, for these "transitional" cases, a defendant absent before the Cartabia Reform, even in an appeal conducted in writing after the Cartabia Reform (but initiated before it), retains the right to an extension of deadlines.

• The condition of "absence" declared before the Cartabia Reform persists, if not revoked.
• This also applies if the appeal proceedings, initiated before the reform, were subsequently handled through a non-participatory written procedure.
• The defendant is entitled to a fifteen-day extension of the deadline for appeal to the Supreme Court (art. 585, paragraph 1-bis, Code of Criminal Procedure).
• The decision protects the right to defence in situations of normative transition.

Conclusions: A Beacon in Procedural Complexity

Ruling no. 17239 of 2025 by the Court of Cassation represents an important reference point for legal professionals and defendants. It clarifies a crucial aspect of the transitional regimes following the Cartabia Reform, ensuring that fundamental rights, such as the right to appeal, are fully exercisable even in complex and changing procedural contexts. Fully understanding these dynamics is essential to ensure effective defence and to successfully navigate the labyrinth of Italian criminal procedural law. For any doubts or need for further clarification, it is always advisable to consult with experienced professionals in the field.